Let me begin by apologizing to Tanta, co-blogger at Calculated Risk, for failing to appropriately identify him or her as the author of the CR posts I referenced in "In Praise Of The Subprime Market (Etc.)" and "Calculated Risk Vs. Austin Goolsbee, Round Two" -- a mistake I could have rectified earlier if I simply read the macroblog comment section on a more timely basis. I will attempt to atone by bringing Tanta's objections to my objections above the fold:

It doesn't matter whether you agree with CRL's analysis or not. It doesn't even matter whether CRL is claiming to understand what the underlying cause of the problem is or is merely raising a question about it.

What matters to any understanding of Goolsbee's op-ed is that he picked up a statistic, credited it to CRL--which gives it a certain cachet, no?--and used it utterly uncritically as support for his claim that subprime lending has been an unqualified benefit to minority borrowers. Find me one spot in that op-ed where Goolsbee even acknowledges that there are serious and informed points of view other than his own about minority lending patterns.

So it isn't an argument about what CRL is up to; it's an argument about what Goolsbee is up to. And I still haven't seen anyone explain that word "drastic" to me. Am I the only one who finds it an odd choice, in context?

I don't see why I'm the one who is "flirting with unfairness." Goolsbee is saying in any understanding of idiomatic English I know of that there is no "fair" or "unfair," there is only "access to mortgage debt" and "no access to mortgage debt." In such a world, what would be an unfair price for a loan?

Why is this an unfair reading of Goolsbee?

As I am supposing that this last question is not entirely rhetorical, I'll make three points:

(1)  The Goolsbee reference to the CRL is this:

The Center for Responsible Lending estimated that in 2005, a majority of home loans to African-Americans and 40 percent of home loans to Hispanics were subprime loans. The existence and spread of subprime lending helps explain the drastic growth of homeownership for these same groups.

I read the reference to the CRL as nothing more than citing the source of the statistic in the first sentence, not as an endorsement of the second sentence.  I can see the case for a little more care in exposition -- but I still don't think the intention was to mislead or be disingenuous.

(2) I guess I wouldn't have used the word "drastic" either, but then I've never been accused of being James Joyce.

(3)  Rather than speak for Austin Goolsbee, I'll admit that my position has the flavor of "there is no 'fair' or 'unfair,' there is only 'access to mortgage debt' and 'no access to mortgage debt'." It's really a predilection more than an assertion -- I'm inclined to put the burden of proof on those who make appeals to market failure, particularly when those appeals are coupled with claims that regulators ought to do something about it.   But that's the religion part.  Unfortunately, on this particular issue at this particular time, that's about as solid as my position gets.